I remember watching games with my step dad and hed be all excited to see the packers moving down the field or having a big play then next thing you knew was brent would throw one of his wild balls and it would get picked off and my step dad would be saying "F$%^! F$%!"

that was brent - a Great QB but like you said vince ... an int was just around the corner.

Also the same people that feel this way about Favre, do you also feel that the Colts would have more SBs if it wasn't for Manning? No, probably not, because Manning elevated the Colts to that level, just as Favre did IMO. I don't think those Packers teams were particularly great. He never had HOF WRs or HOF RBs and the D's were decent but not great.

It evens out IMO. May be the Packers win a few more SBs if Favre isn't Favre but may be Favre wins a few more SBs if the Packers had better Ds or better RBs/WRs.

Overall, I think he elevated the Packers to contenders and gave us 17 years of only ONE losing season. And we won a SB. What else do people want.

I think people wanted Favre to be held more accountable at crucial times in particularly crucial game. Before the nasty divorce from Green Bay -- almost to a person -- the feelings towards Favre came from a place of adoration. That said, starting with the playoffs in '98 up until the near-miracle run in '07, Favre had a way of playing downright awful in the playoffs. For many of those years Favre's surrounding offensive cast was average to above-average. Favre did indeed elevate Green Bay's position. However, the NFC Central/North was largely uncompetitive throughout those years (exceptions exist, I know).

Favre's legendary status was firmly in place by the earlier part of the previous decade. If Green Bay was in a advantageous position going into the postseason, Favre's gritty performances were the cause. BUT that didn't buy him a pass to be foolish with the ball in the playoffs. And there are plenty of examples of Favre trying to force things, trying to seemingly win games on his own. It was great that he played a huge role in getting the team to that point. It wasn't great that there didn't seem to be much accountability at the crucial point. How many times have you heard him say, "I was just trying to make a play." We get it Brett. But maybe work the check-down. Hell, throw it away once in a while.

He's a quarterback. He gets too much credit; at times he gets too much blame. He shoudl be considered one of the best guys to take you there, but the only time he finished the deed he had arguably the NFL's best defense AND special teams.

I personally think that the surrounding talent in Minnie is just about as good as he's ever had. That's why it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Vikes make a run this year. Ahman Green was very good at his best, but he's no AP.

NSD, I cannot seriously debate this with you. You clearly have hate on for Favre. Your whole post is not objective at all.

You didn't even watch Super Bowl XXXII. Do you realize the Packers were 11 point favorites. 11 Points. And that D gave up 31 points. TD broke the record for most TDs by a RB I am pretty sure. And in a game where he suffered a massive migrane where he couldn't even see straight.

Did you honestly watch the Falcons game or did you just look at the Box Score like Super Bowl XXXII?

Opening drive, 75 yard touchdown drive led by VICK. Then

4-3-GB 12 (6:43) J.Bidwell punt is BLOCKED by M.Simoneau, Center-R.Davis, RECOVERED by ATL-A.Ulmer at GB 1. A.Ulmer for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.

14-0

Then

4-19-ATL 29 (1:03) R.Longwell 47 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-R.Davis, Holder-D.Pederson.

Then

4-9-GB 50 (14:45) C.Mohr punts 33 yards to GB 17, Center-D.Rackley. T.Williams MUFFS catch, RECOVERED by ATL-G.Layne at GB 21. G.Layne to GB 21 for no gain (S.Warren).

That leads to another TD.

At that point its 21-0. Then:

4-2-ATL 2 (6:37) A.Green up the middle to ATL 6 for -4 yards (E.Johnson). Yes that great A. Green, stopped at 4th and goal.

Then Vick leads a 90 yard drive from his own 5 yards for a FG. Which eats up 7 minutes of the 2nd quarter.

24-0 at half.

How much of that First Half do you put on Favre? He had one INT and that lead to no points. If you think that GB team was any near SB calibar to be down 24-0 to Vick at home, I don't know what to tell you.

At the point of Favre's 2nd INT, it was in the 4th quarter, when they were already down 31-7, and that didn't even lead to points - Btw, Longwell missed ANOTHER FG.

THAT TEAM SUCKED, you can't look at Box Scores, you have to watch the games. To lose at home to MICHAEL F'N VICK. These are these myths people make up in their mind that somehow these Packers teams were better than actually were. They were not.

Favre took a lot of these medicore teams and made them great by turning bum RBs and bum WRs into decent players. Yes, I guess you can blame him for not carrying these teams even further, but how many QBs honestly carried a crappy team to a SB? Seriously, I can't even think of one.

And anytime your D cannot stop a 4th and 27, is a joke. If your premise is that the QB has to be great in every game, thats not the case. LOTS of QBs have won SB with their D winning them a game - Saints/Vikings, the D won them that game the fumbles and INTs. The Saints O had hardly any yards against the Vikings. Is Brees SB any less sweet because he needed the D to bail him out, NO. Big f'n deal, I expect our D to stop a 4th and 27 and win us the game. Big deal. I bet if you go back in playoff history ,every team that won the SB, probably needed at some point for their D to make up for the O.

If your premise is that Favre is expected to put the team on his back every game (e.g., Seahawks v. Packers 2007), then he's not that good and you are bound be disappointed in Rodgers too. Overall, Favre is part of the blame in any loss but I really don't understand this myth that these Packers teams were so great and they would have won if Favre didn't screw them over.

I didn't bring up Favre so don't blame me. But honestly, how much of that 24-0 at half do you attribute to Favre when Vick ate up the clock on two long drives. Plus Longwell missed a FG and they got stopped at the Goal Line.

Then second half, I think Packers came out and scored a TD to make it 24-7 and then the Falcons put together another drive right away to answer to 31-7.

I just don't believe that these Packers teams were that good. Compare the Rams O to the Packers O that year minus Warner and Favre. And you will see why the whole house of cards depends on Favre.

There's some irony in the fact that you're talking about Favre being great because he pulled "lesser" teams out of the depths of mediocrity, while you harp on Manning because he plays in a dome and doesn't have that great a play-off record.

Let me put it like this. Most Packers teams have been better than most Colts teams in the last decade. Manning makes that team what it is.

Their offenses have been consistently great, while often featuring a mediocre running game and/or O-line and receivers who "come out of nowhere". He made guys like Brandon Stokley. Their defense has been mediocre for ages, sometimes showing up at pivotal times, but often letting the offense play a huge game of catch-up.

And I know, Favre made Antonio Freeman, Favre hasn't always had a great O-line and Favre hasn't always had the running game... But when he did have a crappy team, he usually struggled, trying to make something out of nothing. Forcing things to badly.

And then the intangibles. They don't get much more obvious than with Manning. His study habits, throws under pressure etc.

Manning's a better QB than Favre.

TIME OUT.

Have you ever sat in a bar with a bunch of buddies talking football?

The natural flow of the conversation is so great. It moves, it flows,changes directions, and it gives the original conversation continued life.

This is what is so great about Kevin's web site. This thread is just like a conversation in a bar with a bunch of buddies talking around a table full of beer and two plates of nachos.

I personally have no challenge with it getting off topic or bringing up Brett. It is the natural flow of the conversation. The same way it would be in a bar.

This is a damn good site.